Stephen - I am not required to explain anything. I am just telling you what 5 physics professors and a senior technician plus an unknown number of their colleagues did. With all due respect, MFMP doesn't have that firepower.
So personal status is more important than knowledge and reliable experiments? 
Alan
Smith wrote:
Over the years since the Rossi saga began ,there has been a lot of
speculation about 'the secret sauce'. In other words, an extra ingedient
or ingredients in addition to Ni,Li, and LiAlH4. Do you know if there
is such a 'secret sauce'
In the earlier models (early 2011) with H2 gas there was no Li in the fuel, so
obviously Li is not needed (if you believe the early ones worked).
The idea to use Li was probably something Rossi got from Sven K. Rossi
believed that p+7Li --> 2 alphas would not give any external
radiation (high energy gammas, neutrons). This is of course incorrect.
It is a link to a public website, on a public server of an public university, that contains no personal data, this does not justify censorship.
Is it OK if I post information on sifferkoll's real name, a few aliases and other public information from a public site? (For those not used to subtle irony, this is a rhetorical question. I would not dream of revealing the information. Maybe. :-))
I find your treatment of Thomas is disgusting, and I agree with Frank's view. Thomas had chosen to use a proper name and not an alias. That does not necessarily mean that it is his real name. He had chosen not to fill in his location, which I interpret as a signal that he wants some anonymity. Of course everybody can do some research and find a probable candidate.
That there are posters here who think that everyone who says something critical of Rossi or LENR should be banned is ... embarrassing! What is the meaning of a discussion if everyone agrees? Why not go to the other places instead?
Another "edge" area is Hora's hope for much higher than expected reaction cross-section from H-11B fusion using petawatt lasers. This really is LENR territory - the difference is that though highly speculative it has workable hypotheses that can be investigated through eitehr theory or experiment, as Hora is doing.
There is no doubt that high energy lasers can create very high electric fields, and thus be used as accelerators. This is NOT LENR! It is also not a viable source of energy since creating the high fields (be it with accelerators or high energy lasers) costs more than the gain from nuclear reactions with positive Q-value. It is simply a balance between gain and efficiency.
one point to add about "extrordinary" question, is that doubt should push to more investigation, not less.
There are several reasons to require "extraordinary" proof for LENR:
1 Possible conflicts with accepted physics
2 Extremely important and interesting if true
3 Enormous commercial value
4 Solves the CO2 and pollution problems
5 Risk for fraud
I saw an article on science alert on this.
If it was not mentioned before. I will butcher the spelling but what is photropic?
???
I looked at the articles. Sensational if true, but not relevant for LENR:
The Playground
And, by the way, I'm for good and strong proof. I just don't like those scientists who call for extraordinary proof. All scientific work should be performed competently and with a mindset to eliminate loop holes. But the hardcore skeptics take the burden of evidence to the extreme.
You obviously don't like Carl Sagan then. And I'm sick of meaningless references to Edison and the Wright brothers. If there are no loopholes, there is no problem. The problem is there usually are loopholes as evidenced by Thomas, Krivit and many others. And it is through review of published work progress is made.
From J of NP:
QuoteDisplay More
Alessandro Ferrari
May 25, 2016 at 9:24 AM
Dear Dr. Rossi,
I’m following, allmost daily, any news about you and your e-cat since your presentazione in Bologna with Focardi in 2011.
Today I saw an article about angular decay anomaly in Be8 generated by bombarding a Li7 target with protons.
Here is the link
http://www.nature.com/news/has-a-hungar ... re-1.19957
I hope it can be usefull to your theorical and experimental research.
Can e-cat quark become a successfull product as soon as possibile.
Best regards,
Alessandro
Andrea Rossi
May 25, 2016 at 10:50 AM
Alessandro Ferrari:
Thank you for the link.
I know this interesting paper.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
We have discussed p+7Li-->2 alpha before. The article is in Nature, so it's not completely crazy,
and it is well written, as you would expect. It claims an alternative
to decay to 2 alphas. It would be a new boson with a mass of 17 MeV. The
decay would require a fifth force. It is very unlikely that it is
correct, but it is fun anyway.
Is it relevant to LENR? No, not really, since it is a very small effect. It was known that 8Be can decay
by gamma and also by internal pair creation. The branching ratios
(probabilities) are, however, very small. What the authors have seen is
an anomaly in the distribution of e+,e-, which they interpret as the
result of the decay of a new boson with a new fundamental interaction. The paper has
received interest, but more data are required (and will come, LHC, Jefferson Laboratory). To add a new interaction to the standard model would, however, be a big sensation. Definitely Nobel prize class if it is confirmed.
Here is an open access version of the paper:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1604.07411
If someone offered to sell me a hot water heater that used an unknown source of energy vs. a conventional heat pump of the same alleged COP, water flow, temperature range, and so fourth I wouldn't need to test one of the devices any more than the other. The significance of the claim doesn't impact the extent of the testing that is required.
Suppose the unknown source gave you a lethal dose of radiation? What would you say then? Not much!
The problem is that skeptics require too great a degree of proof. I am all for removing obvious, significant issues in tests. However, the problem is that skeptics demand extraordinary evidence of extraordinary claims. When, in reality, such claims should not require extraordinary evidence -- only what is needed for any mundane claim. For example, if I said an ordinary heat pump could produce a COP of 2 it would no take a thousand different tests eliminating every single loop hole. However, if I claim a cold fusion device is producing a COP of 2, skeptics will create a thousand different problems and demand every one of them be ruled out.
I see myself as being in the middle of the spectrum with pathological skeptics on one end and totally gullible individuals who believe every single claim with no evidence on the other end.
What are you saying? This is not the fifth 2+ level in 62Ni. This is LENR which would turn physics upside down? Of course we have the right to demand extraordinary evidence! A heat pump with COP 2 is well understood and expected (actually not very good). LENR requires several bypasses of established physics, and we physicists are a bit prickly when it comes to laws of physics and established experimental results. The problem is also that in some cases (no names, but you know who) the experiments are not optimized to prove the effect but to make your gullible individuals believe.
Another anomaly that I haven't wrapped my head around yet: in the fuel there was lithium at natural abundances, and in the ash there was lithium highly enriched in 6Li.
The interesting detail for me is the elevated levels of 6Li. Lithium has a melting point of 180 C, so it will not have stayed in one place in this particular test. Is the suggestion that Rossi planted enriched 6Li? Perhaps this is readily possible given what we know about the circumstances of the handling of the reactor core and the obtaining of the sample for the assay; or is it?
Could be bought isotope separated (probably a mixture with natural Li). If most Li were evaporated, one would expect 7Li to remain since it is heavier. And you know what I think of p+Li-->2 alpha.
The Li levels were very low in the ash (indicating possible errors) and natural fractionation through diffusion mechanisms also possible. So I don't see anything much in that: you'd need more domain-specific knowledge than I have to determine that this measurement was unusual (perhaps somone here has that: Peter Ekstrom?). Though given Rossi likely planted the 62Ni he could also have planted 6Li which is cheap.
Yes, se above.
Though, in normal circumstances, robust transmutation evidence would be very strong.
I agree completely as long as the handling of the samples in better than that of LAPD (we have seen the movie of the OJ Simpson trial recently in Sweden). Note that his is for isotope ratios. Only elemental analysis may be completely misleading (evaporation, reacting with other compounds/elements...)
The final Ni62 percent was 97.3. If the nickel was enriched via centrifuge, the percent of Ni64 would stay the same at 4.1%. instead, the Ni64 fell to .1% or less.
You lost me here! I think 62Ni was more than 99 and the other isotopes less than 1%. 4% 64Ni would be useless. And who said it was centrifuged? I think one uses magnetic separation. What was the spec of MFMP:s 62Ni? Was it not the same as in the Lugano sample?
Actually, maybe the steam experts will correct me; but isn't steam invisible until it condensates?
Why ridicule Rossi for the lack of steam visibility when that is what you are supposed to see if we are dealing with real steam?
Dry steam is indeed invisible. But there is some mist (wet steam) in front of the tube. That would have been blown away by the fast moving steam.
This is really Déjà vu!
You need to read the LUGANO report in great detail to understand that the nickel was melted. Rossi understood this because he picked that melted particle out of the reactor as described by Dr. Cook. It was the only piece of nickel that he could free. By the way, randombit0 did not know that nuckel had melted and Rossi did. So bit0 cannot be Rossi.
Rossi took this new understanding of how the LENR reaction could continue even if nickel was in a melted state into the next design of the quark reactor which runs at very high temperatures beyond the melting point of nickel.
If the E-Cat works also when the Ni is melted, the physical structure of the Ni obviously doesn't matter. That should make replication much easier. (Peter the alchemist)
Who is Dr Cook? He with the strange nuclear theory?
I agree, Bit0 is much prettier!
Its an interesting point about the high energy alphas interacting with other nuclei, has this been discussed at length before? If so could someone point me to it? I'd like to try and understand more about the background.
Yes, but nobody reacted. Search the forum for Stelson and you will find the postings. I have calculated the count rate, but please check that I did not get lost in the powers of ten!
I'm thinking the alpha's may rarely if ever escape the confines of the microcavities. They probably take place where the pressure is the highest -- at the deepest levels of the microcavities -- and then bounce around the walls impacting more lithium. If they do escape, they have bounced around enough that their kinetic energy is much lower.
No, your theory is not valid. You cannot lock alphas like that, and if they "bounce" they interact with a nucleus which will then decay with gammas. The alphas will interact with the fuel material. Sometime we may have a look with accelerated alphas on Rossis powders from 2011. But there is no doubt what the result will be, it has been done many times before.
Rather than discussing the subject, the E-Cat believers (I hope that's an acceptable term in the Playground) complain about how sceptics (sometimes for some unknown reason called pseudosceptics) refer to believers:
But I'm simply tired of name calling, insults, mocking, and snide remarks being constantly tossed around.
or what motivation they have for criticising theories and experimental procedures
I am yet to be convinced of your true motivations along with many other individuals on this forum. That is not an insult -- simply a fact about what is going across my mind.
I agree that one should minimize name calling etc,, but to question the motivation of somebody that invests a lot of work into finding the truth is indeed an insult! Criticism is an important tool to promote progress. You may get to the goal by a random walk (it does happen), but avoiding dead ends is more efficient!
Talking about dead ends:
More and more groups seem to be getting results from Ni-LiAlH4-Li.
This is a no-starter if it involves the Li-2 alpha reaction. It is very well known that the 9 MeV alphas will cause several reactions in the reactor. The reactions will generate penetrating neutrons or gammas which would be very easy to detect. (Search for Stelson in the forum for details.)
As we know there are elements of physics that remain essentially unexplained. Where we are still only looking through the big picture window.
Indeed. But you also have to explain away a lot of empirical results. Theories come and go.
The real beauty in this is the open universal sharing of the work and science moving hopefully towards 'critical mass' and a Moore's Law like development curve......this will put the pressure on Rossi et al to get their collective acts in gear if they want to stay in the game.
Are we truly heading for a technological Tsunami?
There is also the small matter of laws of physics. Some seem to think that talking is enough.
Fascinating.
So it's pointless to try and enhance a reaction for which there is no theory, better try to create the theory first, even if it's been elusive for, what, nearly a century?
Empirical trials and errors are useless! don't go this way, you might understand how it works!
Good isotope analysis of fuel and ash will be the definite answer yes or no. If yes, the result would indicate exactly what goes on. It is difficult to see a working process without detectable radiation, but isotope shift is 100% sure if we want to keep the first law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy).
The two Rossi attempts at isotope analysis do not count since independent control was lacking.
Added: Notice that elemental analysis is not enough. An element can possibly move or disappear. It is harder to imagine accidental isotope separation. This means of course that the ash composition in the Lugano test (99% 62Ni) is absolutely conclusive that the E-Cat works!
